openclaw_usage_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Declares itself as 'Read-only', a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It could disclose more (e.g., no side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits) but the read-only declaration provides basic transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and every phrase adds value. Extremely concise for the information conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only status tool, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on what exactly 'token counts', 'current period', and 'quotas' refer to, and no output schema exists to compensate. Slightly more context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the sole parameter ('instance'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves usage status with specifics like token counts, current period, and quotas. It also notes it wraps `usage.status`. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like `openclaw_status` and `openclaw_health`, but does not explicitly differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `openclaw_status` or `openclaw_usage_cost`. The description implies its use for token/quotas but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.